Closing the Fire Safety Competence Gap

Fire Safety Matters: What prompted the publication of The Fire Safety Competence Gap Special Report and what is it seeking to address?

Dr Justin Maltby-Smith: Since the Grenfell Tower tragedy, we’ve witnessed considerable progress in terms of how organisations approach fire safety, with greater awareness of responsibilities, increased investment in fire protection and a much stronger focus on managing risk.

However, there’s a fundamental problem that hasn’t been adequately addressed. Those with legal responsibility for fire safety are expected to appoint competent solution providers, but many lack the knowledge or means to verify that competence. We view this as a significant gap between accountability and assurance. While today’s organisations understand that they have responsibilities, they’re not always equipped to fulfil them with confidence.

BAFE, the FIA and the NSI recognised this problem through our respective work across the sector. We wanted independent evidence to establish its scale and understand what support buyers need. The findings of our research confirm that further action is necessary.

Fire Safety Matters: What did the research process reveal about how organisations approach fire safety?

Richard Fogelman: One of the most encouraging findings is that 93% of respondents agree that focus and action around fire safety have increased, while 79% expect financial investment levels to rise over the next five years.

However, the research also exposes some worrying gaps in understanding with one-third of decision makers expressing doubt about the basic legal duties of the ‘Responsible Person’. In addition, nearly half (45%, in fact) of ‘Responsible Persons’ failed to identify checking the competence of their fire risk assessor as being one of their responsibilities.

Perhaps most tellingly, 73% of decision makers either don’t know whether their fire risk assessor is appropriately certificated, don’t know who provides that certification or don’t know how to appoint a certificated provider. What’s particularly striking is the discovery that 97% of those surveyed recognise the benefits of third party certification.

The appetite for independent assurance is clearly there, but many organisations simply don’t know how to access it.

Fire Safety Matters: What are the principal recommendations outlined in The Fire Safety Competence Gap?

Dr Justin Maltby-Smith: We’re making two recommendations to Government, both of which are designed to give those responsible for fire safety a clearer and more reliable way of identifying competent providers.

First, we’re recommending that third party certification by UKAS-accredited certification bodies becomes the required means of verifying the competence of fire safety providers. Second, we’re calling for a single and authoritative register of appropriately certificated providers, thereby affording buyers a trusted and straightforward way in which to source competent organisations.

Importantly, these are not proposals designed to create an entirely new system as the mechanisms for independently assessing competence already exist and are operating successfully across the sector.

What we’re asking Government to do is recognise those mechanisms and establish them as the standard route for demonstrating competence.

Fire Safety Matters: What’s the difference between independent third party certification and other ways of demonstrating competence?

Richard Fogelman: The distinction is important as not all forms of certification or industry recognition provide the same level of assurance.

Membership of a Trade Association or inclusion in a commercial directory doesn’t necessarily mean that an organisation’s competence has been independently assessed against recognised standards. In some cases, providers can be listed without undergoing the same level of technical scrutiny.

Third party certification through a UKAS-accredited certification body is different as it involves independent assessment against defined requirements, with regular audits conducted to establish that standards continue to be maintained. UKAS accreditation also means that the certification body itself is independently assessed for its competence and impartiality, in turn providing an additional level of assurance.

For buyers, this removes much of the uncertainty around assessing technical competence themselves. Rather than relying on claims or assumptions, they have independently verified evidence on which to base their decisions.

Fire Safety Matters: Why do you believe these changes are so important for the future of fire safety here in the UK?

Martin Watson: The industry has invested considerable time, expertise and resources in developing professional standards, training and independent certification arrangements, with thousands of organisations continually demonstrating their commitment to meeting recognised requirements.

However, buyers still face a fragmented market in which different forms of industry recognition can be difficult to distinguish. That creates a degree of uncertainty when making important fire safety decisions. It also means that organisations investing in independently verified competence don’t always receive the recognition their commitment deserves.

The recommendations would help buyers make better-informed decisions, while at the same time establishing a clearer and more consistent approach towards recognising competence across the sector. Ultimately, this is about ensuring that those responsible for protecting people and buildings can make informed decisions and be supported by a system they can trust.

Fire Safety Matters: Why is Government involvement necessary? Could the industry address these issues itself?

Richard Fogelman: The industry has already made considerable progress in terms of developing mechanisms for demonstrating competence. UKAS-accredited certification bodies independently assess solution providers against recognised standards, with ongoing audits carried out to ensure those standards continue to be met.

However, voluntary certification alone cannot resolve the fundamental problem identified by the research. We can establish rigorous assessment processes and encourage organisations to use them, but without Government backing, buyers will continue to face a fragmented market in which identifying independently verified competence is an unnecessarily difficult task.

There’s an established precedent in the Gas Safe Register, which recognises that consumers cannot reasonably be expected to assess the technical competence of gas engineers themselves. We believe the same principle should apply to those appointing fire safety providers.

Fire Safety Matters: What brought BAFE, the FIA and the NSI together on this vitally important issue?

Martin Watson: Although our organisations have different roles, we share a common concern about the difficulties buyers face when trying to establish whether fire safety providers are competent.

Between us, we represent a substantial cross-section of the UK’s fire safety sector, encompassing thousands of registered and member organisations. The FIA is Europe’s largest fire protection-focused Trade Association, while BAFE and the NSI play established roles in developing certification arrangements and independently assessing competence.

Together, we bring different perspectives and expertise to the table, but we’re united in our determination to make it easier for buyers to identify competent fire safety solution providers. We firmly believe that, by speaking with one voice, we can make a stronger case for the changes needed.

Fire Safety Matters: If Government acts on the recommendations outlined in the report, what can it expect from the sector in return?

Martin Watson: Government can expect a fire sector that’s willing to take responsibility for supporting implementation and helping organisations to meet the standards necessarily required of them.

Through organisations such as BAFE, the FIA and the NSI, there’s already considerable expertise in developing standards, delivering training, assessing competence and supporting businesses through certification.

We absolutely recognise that mandating independent third party certification would place new expectations on parts of the industry, particularly so those organisations that haven’t previously pursued it. That makes it essential to provide clear guidance, deliver appropriate training and confirm practical routes towards achieving the necessary standards.

Our sector has a responsibility to help organisations complete that journey, rather than simply setting requirements and leaving them to work things out for themselves. Our message to Government is very clear in that the foundations are already in place.

Fire Safety Matters: What are the next steps to be taken in terms of the work that’s needed?

Dr Justin Maltby-Smith: The publication of this report marks the beginning of the next stage of our work, with a determined focus on engaging Government and the wider fire safety sector to share the evidence and build an understanding of why these recommendations are necessary.

We also want to encourage a broader discussion about how competence is demonstrated and recognised, and how those with legal responsibilities can be better supported in making informed decisions.

The research clearly shows that buyers value independent assurance, but too often struggle to identify it. We have an established mechanism capable of addressing that problem, not to mention a sector with the expertise and commitment to help make it work.

What we need now is Government backing to turn that capability into a clear, consistent and trusted approach towards competence assurance across the UK.

*Further information is available online at www.bafe.org.uk, www.fia.uk.com and www.nsi.org.uk